Environmental audit on the three-border area of Hungary Slovenia and Austria

Report ID: 190

The territory of Hungary includes the deepest parts of the Carpathian basin, the country’s rivers originate in the neighbor countries and their catchments areas are also located mostly there. Due to this fact of Hungarian natural geography and to the prevailing movement of air in the region, the water and air pollutions occurring in the neighbor countries can speedily reach Hungarian territory and the chance of prevention is small. Intensive international cooperation is required for the timely protection against, respectively the treatment of unfavorable environmental impacts, which can affect the country. The government is to coordinate the enforcement of citizens’ rights for a healthy environment with the implementation of environmental treaties and agreements concluded with other countries and international organizations. Interstate treaties were concluded with the aim to protect surface waters and source water bodies in the border areas, and continuous and organized cooperation is in place on the basis of treaties between the local and central agencies of the neighboring countries. The audit targeted primarily the activities of and cooperation between the institutions, authorities being responsible at the regional level. In addition, the total amount of resources coming into the region for funding the running and capital expenses of nature and environment protection was quantified, and the audit included also an assessment of the cooperation realized between the competent bodies of the countries. The audit strove to find an answer to the question of what influence the above-mentioned resources and activities had on meeting the objectives of environment and nature protection, on the condition of environmental elements (i.e. air, waters, soil). The audit assessed also the risk factors with a potential bearing on the environmental condition of the region in question. The audit covered the government ministry responsible for the governance and control of environment and nature protection, as well as the institutions being under its control and providing specific technical services regionally. Activities of concerned local governments were also covered by the audit. The years 2000-2004 and the first quarter of 2005 were subject to the audit.

The Government?s Preparation and Statement of Tax Expenditure (2007:3)

Report ID: 206

The Government can choose to give support or assistance to businesses and households through different types of allowances, grants or subsidies or through concessions (exemptions and special provisions) in the tax system. Such exemptions and special provisions in the tax system are called tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are the estimated cost to the unrealized tax revenue, which means that this cost is less visible than the cost of other forms of support and allowance.

In connection with the Swedish budget reform which took place in the mid-1990s, the Government established that an important requirement to assist a new, more efficient budget process would be for all exemptions and special provisions resulting in a reduction in revenue to be subjected to equally close scrutiny as the general expenditure appropriations. In order for this to be possible, the support given in the form of tax expenditures must be rendered visible.

Accordingly, since 1996 the Government has compiled an inventory of tax expenditures in a statement of tax expenditure appended to the Spring Fiscal Policy Bill. The objective of the statement is both to render visible the indirect support entailed by the tax expenditures and to provide a foundation for prioritising between different types of support.

In the 2006 statement, support in the form of tax expenditures is estimated at approximately 12 per cent of the total tax revenue, or approximately SEK 170 billion. So the tax expenditures amount to significant sums. At the same time, tax expenditures do not compete for scope in the budget in the same way as general expenditure appropriations. Nor are tax expenditures scrutinised and evaluated with the same regularity as general expenditure appropriations.

Since tax expenditures entail lower tax revenues, they have the same effect on the balance of the central government budget as support on the expenditure side of the budget. With the aim of maintaining good budgetary discipline, there is thus reason to set equally strict requirements for the preparation and accounting for new and existing tax expenditures as for the preparation and accounting for expenditure appropriations.

Sweden in the Arctic Council ? effective return from membership (RiR 2013:9)

Report ID: 208

The Swedish National Audit Office has examined whether Sweden receives an effective return from its membership of the Arctic Council.

The Swedish National Audit Office notes that the Arctic Council is an important forum for issues concerning the Arctic and for initiating central research projects on environmental and climate change in the Arctic. However, the Swedish National Audit Office considers that after almost 20 years of Swedish membership of the Arctic Council it is reasonable to also expect an effective process in Sweden for assessing and, where relevant, implementing Arctic Council recommendations.

This is particularly applicable as decisions in the Arctic Council are made in consensus and are, if not legally, then politically binding. It is also reasonable that Sweden’s work in the Council proceeds from transparent priorities for the Arctic.

The Swedish National Audit Office’s overall conclusion is that Sweden does not receive an effective return in all respects from its membership of the Arctic Council. In the opinion of the Swedish National Audit Office there is insufficient transparency in the Government’s priorities for the work of the Arctic Council. It is therefore difficult to assess whether Sweden’s work in the Arctic Council proceeds from stated priorities. The Government has not ensured that recommendations from the Arctic Council are assessed, ranked in priority and, where relevant, implemented in Sweden. Nor has the Government assigned responsibility for such a process. It is not clear whether the Arctic Council’s recommendations have been implemented in Sweden.

Joint Report of the International Coordinated audit of Chernobyl Shelter Fund

Report ID: 219

On April 26, 1986, the worst accident in the history of civilian nuclear power occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, where an explosion destroyed the core of reactor Unit 4 containing approximately 200 tons of nuclear fuel. The explosion and heat from the reactor core propelled radioactive material as much as six miles high, where it was then dispersed mainly over 60,000 square miles of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Smaller amounts of radioactive material spread over Eastern and Western Europe and Scandinavia and were even detected in the United States.

The Chernobyl Shelter Fund (CSF) was founded at European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in 1997 aimed at financing Shelter Implementation Plant (SIP).The Fund is guided by the set of rules regarding its resource management. Contributor Governments, mainly of G-7 and European Union, contribute to the Fund. The Assembly of Contributors supervises SIP implementation progress.

The Initial SIP costs were estimated at about USD 758 million (about EUR 585 million 4) in 1997. In 2003 and 2004 technical uncertainties and delays in the SIP fulfilment became apparent, especially with the construction of NSC, which resulted in cost escalation to EUR 840 million. The causes of those cost increases and the resulting need for additional steps to control cost and time overruns were discussed at all level including the Assemblies of Contributors. All G-85 Governments agreed to increase the scale of CSF.

Such increase was tied to the requirements to be fulfilled by Ukraine, including improvement of management, removal of procedural obstacles and timely delivery of Ukraine’s contributions. Thus, as of January 2006 estimated total costs were EUR 955 million and term for SIP completion was extended from 2005 to 2010.

Due to failure in timely realization of SIP, in 2006, the Special Subgroup on the Audit of Natural, Man-caused Disasters Consequences and Radioactive Wastes Elimination of the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing decided to conduct an international coordinated audit of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund.

The aim of the audit was the establishment of actual state of affairs regarding legal, organizational and financial support of decommissioning the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (CNPP) and transforming destroyed CNPP Unit 4 into an environmentally safe system by fulfilling the Shelter Implementation Plan.

Source: http://old.ac-rada.gov.ua/img/files/auditeurosai1.pdf

Auditoría Coordinada de obras viales

Report ID: 221

El informe presenta los resultados de la Auditoría Coordinada sobre Obras Viales realizada en el marco del Grupo de Trabajo de Auditoría de Obras Públicas (GTOP) de la Organización Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Entidades Fiscalizadoras Superiores (OLACEFS), con el propósito de evaluar, por medio de auditorías de cumplimiento, la calidad de obras viales de construcción y mantenimiento de once países: Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, México, Paraguay, Perú y República Dominicana.

La auditoría encontró que las fases de contratación de las empresas involucradas – proyectista, constructora y
supervisora – presentaron pocos problemas, mientras que aquellas etapas que involucran la relación de la entidad contratante con la actuación de terceros (diseños realizados por terceros y evaluados por la entidad, modificaciones de diseños y fiscalización de las obras ejecutadas por empresas contratadas) y presentan considerable grado de subjetividad y variabilidad (selección de la “mejor” opción entre diversas posibles, condiciones que son específicas en cada situación), presentaron significativo índice de fallas.

Aunque se considere que la cantidad y la complejidad de servicios, incertidumbre o factores exógenos involucrados en una obra la torne susceptible de fallas, se verifica que la mayor parte de los hallazgos registrados resultó de deficiencias en la actuación de los involucrados – empresas proyectistas, constructoras, supervisoras y agentes públicos – y de fallas de fiscalización de la entidad.

Fuente: https://www.olacefs.com/informe-consolidado-internacional-de-la-auditoria-coordinada-sobre-obras-viales/